Latest news with #ConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Hindu
01-08-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
SBI directed to compensate customer for ‘deficiency in service'
A district consumer commission directed the State Bank of India's to pay compensation to a customer for failing to notify him about the creation of an overdraft account linked to a disputed debit card transaction. The customer had claimed that this had impacted his CIBIL score. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karimnagar, was dealing with a a complaint filed one Gaddam Shivaramakrishna, 27, who claimed that the bank had created a ₹1,200 overdraft account in his name without his consent. Later a technical error related to a merchant transaction in 2019 took place which led to the escalation of the issue. Despite clearing dues, his CIBIL report reflected that he had an active loan. This, he said, affected him negatively. For their part, the SBI admitted to a merchant transaction of ₹1,200 in April 2019 that was reversed. This led to the bank opening an overdraft account for the purpose of adjustment. They contended that the complainant was informed orally and through text message. Later, the account was closed after full repayment. The bank also submitted a CIBIL report that indicated the status of the loan was updated. The Commission found that the creation of the overdraft account was not wrong. They cited RBI guidelines that permit such a move in cases of failed ATM transactions. However, it held the bank had not placed on record concrete evidence of the customer being informed about the account's creation. This, the Commission concluded , amounted deficiency in service.
New Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Karnataka Court orders Rs 13 lakh compensation for nurse over faulty Hepatitis report
UDUPI : A senior nurse from Udupi, 43-year-old Shivakumar Shettigar, lost a job opportunity in Saudi Arabia after a diagnostic error wrongly indicated he had hepatitis C. The faulty report was issued by National CT Scanner and Diagnostic Centre, Mangaluru. Shettigar later tested negative at different facilities and approached the Udupi district Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging negligence. The court ruled in his favour, holding the diagnostic centre accountable for the career loss and mental trauma caused. The court has ordered the centre to pay a compensation of Rs 13.49 lakh to Shettigar within 45 days. Shettigar told TNIE that he was selected for the post of industrial nurse at United Medical Response Company, Saudi Arabia. He was scheduled to travel in February 2024. As part of the mandatory medical clearance required by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), he underwent a test at GCC notified lab -- National CT Scanner and Diagnostic Centre, Mangaluru, on January 17, 2024. The test falsely showed he was Hepatitis C positive. Shettigar underwent a test the next day at a private lab in Manipal, where the results came back negative. Within a week, he also underwent another test at the district government hospital in Udupi and again tested negative. He alleged that the diagnostic centre in Mangaluru had used a faulty kit and the equipment was not properly maintained.
Indian Express
11-06-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Veg vs non-veg: FDA rules call for segregation while preparation, cooking and storage; clueless eateries stack them one above other
A recent consumer court ruling has once again brought to the fore deep concerns over a vegetarian allegedly receiving a non-vegetarian food item. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai dismissed a complaint from a couple who sought compensation regarding the delivery of chicken momos. The couple claimed they had ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, but the Commission noted that if they were 'strictly vegetarian,' they should not have ordered food from a restaurant that also served non-vegetarian meals. While questions have resurfaced about food safety regulations in India, particularly those governing the segregation of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, a closer look into the rules mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and their implementation and awareness among the restaurants and food vendors, reveals a huge gap. Consider this: Schedule 4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, framed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, outlines the general hygienic and sanitary practices for food business operators in India. It states that street food vendors and other non-manufacturing food units must strictly segregate vegetarian and non-vegetarian items. Specifically, the regulations state, 'The preparation, processing, and cooking of vegetarian and non-vegetarian products should be segregated.' To further prevent cross-contamination, the rules mandate the use of a 'separate fridge for raw meat/poultry' and require that staff be trained in proper food handling, with clear instructions to avoid cross-contamination. By contrast, when The Indian Express checked the fridge of a roadside eatery in Nariman Point, which serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, it was found that chicken was stored in a bowl placed on top of another bowl containing pre-prepared vegetables. When asked about following any separate preparation or cooking protocols, the owner, in his early 30s, said he was unaware of any such regulation. When the reporter contacted several other restaurants and roadside eateries, many said they were unaware of these guidelines, and it was evident that they were not adhering to them strictly. The FDA has also put several other key requirements for handling non-vegetarian foods in its guidelines, which state, 'Raw and processed meat should be separated from other foods, items, and surfaces; separate items, including cutting boards, dishes, knives, and preparation areas must be used for raw meats, poultry, and marine products to avoid cross-contamination; and hands should be thoroughly washed before switching from preparing raw meat, poultry, or marine products to any other activity.' The regulations also call for an adequate number of racks for food storage, with clear labelling and dedicated compartments for each food type to minimise the risk of cross-contamination. A former senior Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) officer said regular training sessions are conducted across states to raise awareness among food vendors and hawkers and to bring about behavioural change. But on the ground, the reality is starkly different. A senior FDA official noted that failing to comply with these guidelines can attract a penalty of up to Rs 5 lakh for licensed establishments and Rs 25,000 for registered ones. An FSSAI registration is required for food businesses with an annual turnover below Rs 12 lakh; those with a turnover between Rs 12 lakh and Rs 20 crore need a state licence. Businesses operating across multiple states or with an annual turnover exceeding Rs 20 crore must obtain a central licence. On inspections, the official added that each food safety officer is required to inspect 10 establishments per month. When asked when the last inspection was conducted, the officer said: 'The problem is that we have five food safety officers against the capacity of 49 from the past three years. We will get 40 new officers this month,' he said. No inspection, lack of awareness Restaurants and eateries, however, claim that no such inspection has taken place in decades. A prominent Mumbai-based restaurateur admitted that while their restaurant follows strict processes to minimise errors, this is largely because they adhere to international standards, not because regulatory bodies like the FSSAI mandate such practices. 'If you look at small eateries, hawkers, or roadside vendors, do you think they follow any protocol? Even the water they use is highly questionable,' the restaurateur said, adding that despite years in the industry, they are not fully aware of the policies laid out by the FSSAI or FDA. 'People who are truly particular wouldn't even visit a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food,' the restaurateur added. Some claim to be following the norms. Sagar Daryani, president of the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) and CEO of Wow! Momo said that guidelines are in place by the FSSAI and FDA, and that every established operator adheres to them. 'There are also standard industry practices that food operators have adopted—not just segregation of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, but also keeping in mind other dietary preferences and allergens, as well as using separate fryers, steamers, induction cookers, and utensils,' he said. When asked how widely these practices are being implemented, he stated that they are adhered to by all the major food operators who are established and want to excel in the industry across cities, including Mumbai. 'There are clear FSSAI guidelines, and we are inspected when we apply for licenses, and then there are annual inspections as well. Any good operator would segregate veg from non-veg and have different equipment, refrigerators and storage areas. Most also have dedicated independent auditors to check not only the stock and finances but also the brand, whether the staff were wearing gloves, the way products are stored, expiry date of the products, etc.,' he added.
Indian Express
09-06-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
‘If strictly veg, why order from non-veg restaurant?': Consumer forum dismisses Dadar couple's complaint over chicken momos
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the delivery of chicken momos to a couple who allegedly ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, observing that if they were 'strictly vegetarian', they need not have ordered food from a restaurant that also delivers non-vegetarian meals. The Commission added that the complainants failed to provide proof that they had ordered vegetarian momos and pointed out that the offer mentioned both 'veg-non-veg'. 'If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted for order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from a restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food,' the bench comprising president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse said in the order on May 13. The couple from Dadar had approached the Commission in the district in 2020, stating that while they had ordered a 'Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo' from the outlet Wow Momos, and had specified their preference for vegetarian food, they were served chicken momos. They had paid Rs 120 for the combo, which included an aerated beverage, and sought compensation for the 'mental trauma' and 'emotional distress', as their religious feelings were hurt, alleging negligence by the eatery. Wow Momos denied the allegations and said the couple had ordered a non-vegetarian combo, as is evident from their order invoice. They were also given a refund, which they had accepted, and hence they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, it was submitted on behalf of the firm. The Commission said no evidence was produced to show that the couple had ordered vegetarian momos, and the photographs they submitted as evidence did not indicate what kind of momos were delivered. 'If non-veg order had been delivered to the complainants instead of veg order, then it ought to have contained only non-veg pieces. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it… The complainants have produced a photo of the offer board which did not clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momos were veg or non-veg,' the bench said. 'However, the board did mention 'veg-non-veg', at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type,' the commission stated, adding that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility that non-veg options were available. The complainants also said that they were performing a puja and other religious ceremonies at the time, but the Commission stated that no proof was given to substantiate this claim, nor was the name of any pujari disclosed.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Telangana high court discharges doctor in medical negligence case
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court discharged a doctor charged with the death of a patient due to negligence and cheating, after finding that none of the sections of law alleged against the doctor (petitioner) warranted taking cognisance of a crime against him. The doctor approached the high court after a city court dismissed his petition seeking discharge from the criminal case registered in April 2013, in connection with the death of a woman in Nov 2009 due to his alleged negligence during treatment, resulting in the woman's death. Delivering verdict in a criminal revision petition challenging the Hyderabad court's April 2024 order, Justice EV Venugopal said that the entire record showed that the doctor only suggested some tests to be done for the determination of the disease with which the woman was actually suffering, and hence, it did not attract any of the charges laid against him. Referring to the grievance of the woman's family, the court observed that after the family approached the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, the commission directed the doctor to compensate the woman's family, and hence the family's grievance was also addressed. While maintaining that the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the high court remarked that civil cases are decided on the basis of the preponderance of evidence, while in criminal cases, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. Further, since the proceedings of the commission cannot be equated with those of the proceedings before the civil court, the commission's findings would not have any bearing or applicability to the present case, said the court, while setting aside the lower court's order and discharging the doctor in the criminal case.
